UPDATE #1: When I wrote this last week, I thought the review undwerway was a formal 5-Year Review (which is required periodically for endangered species programs) and it’s legally required that public notices for these are to be published in the Federal Register. However, this morning (9/2) I was informed by the Red Wolf Recovery Program assistant coordinator that it’s not a 5-Year Review; it’s a special review that was requested by the State of NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and then later requested by the NC Farm Bureau, and the NC Sportsmen’s Caucus. I’m not clear where this leaves things legally in terms of public notification requirements — although a lawyer involved in the recent red wolf/coyote hunting lawsuit against the State of NC told me she believes the FWS was legally obligated to announce the review in the Federal Register but that they hadn’t in order to (from her perspective) better fly under the radar and make the program dissappear overnight.

UPDATE #2: The assistant coordinator apparently had no knowledge that the FWS intended to issue their press release the Friday before a national Holiday, or that they were going to hold a press teleconference that afternoon. (I couldn’t call in due to previously scheduled appointments — which is probably exactly what the SE Regional Office of the FWS was counting on for most media members the Friday afternoon before Labor Day weekend.) I find it triply suspicious that the regional FWS office failed to notify the Red Wolf Recovery program in advance of its intention to issue a press release and hold a press conference.(My earlier posting for Update #2 was based on a statement I misunderstood — the asst. coordinator clarified by email that she did know of the press release in advance, but not of the press teleconference. My apologies for disseminating incorrect information.)

Red wolf puppies (FWS/Ryan Nordsven)

For a few weeks now, I’ve been suspecting that something awfully fishy is going on in Red Wolf Country. I can’t escape the premonition that higher-ups in the Fish and Wildlife Service are positioning their pawns to kill or significantly alter the red wolf reintroduction program. Three years have passed since I finished writing my book on red wolves, and it’s been one year since it was published. But so much has changed since then I can only shake my head in disbelief. All the hope I held onto when completing the book is wavering.

Red wolves are globally endangered, and though a captive population exists in some 40-plus breeding facilities across the U.S., the planet’s only wild red wolves, a mere 90 or so, inhabit 1.7 million acres on a spit of coastal swamp and forest known as the Albemarle Peninsula. The first reintroduced red wolves were released into Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge on September 14, 1987. Nearly 27 years later, the FWS appears to be coming under intense pressure from anti-wolf advocates to shut down the red wolf program entirely.

On Friday, August 29, the FWS Southeast Regional Office issued a press release announcing the beginning of a 60-day review of the program and asking for public input. There’s information at the bottom of this post about how to submit comments. But first, there are a few importat things to note about what’s happened, and what hasn’t… taken together, something very fishy is brewing on the horizon:

1. The FWS issued this press release — perhaps the most important red wolf program press release ever — on the Friday before Labor Day. In other words, they dumped the news in such a way as to ensure few media outlets might pick up on it right away… it’s the best strategy in the world to let the information land with a soft poof and not make many waves until after the Labor Day weekend had passed — that is, if reporters even find the release in their inboxes by then.

2. The release stated a very short window of time for people to submit comments: a mere two weeks. Comments will be closed on Sept. 12. (I can’t help but dwell on the irony of that date, as it falls so close to the 27th anniversary of the red wolf program.) When the FWS last held a 5-year review of the red wolf program in 2005, they allowed two months for comments — this time, they’re only allowing two weeks for comments, three days of which are consumed by a national Holiday!

3. The program review is being conducted by a third party, the Wildlife Management Institute. Never having heard of this organization before I googled them only to discover their Board is composed primarily of people working in sportsmen’s organizations: the Boone and Crocket Club, Pheasants Forever, ATK Security and Shooting, and Pheasants Forever. Really? This is the crew who will decide the fate of the red wolf program? A sportsmen’s wildlife management group? By awarding the contract to WMI, it appears the FWS is all but signaling its desire to cut the red wolf program off at the knees.

5. Nor has the FWS published in the Federal Register the two planned open houses in northeastern North Carolina, where they have announced (in the press release) that the public is welcome to offer comments on the red wolf program.

Call me cynical, but something smells awfully rotten here. Combined, all of these elements reek that the SE Regional Office is harboring intentions of either significantly changing the red wolf program or perhaps eliminating it all together.

What can you do? Write an email attesting to your support of the red wolf recovery program. Send it to: redwolfreview@fws.gov. The press release states the FWS is interested in hearing about “the public’s perspectives regarding red wolves, and red wolf recovery efforts in Eastern North Carolina . . . Interested individuals may submit comments, concerns, or information regarding the Eastern North Carolina non-essential, experimental red wolf population and the program evaluation . . .” The advocacy group The Red Wolf Coalition has posted an informative action alert on their website. I’m shamelessly cutting and pasting it below:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Red Wolf Recovery Program is currently undergoing a 60-day review, which is to be completed by 10 October 2014. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is gathering public perspective and opinion via three three methods: (1) email, (2) an online survey and (3) public focus group sessions. The future of the Recovery Program will depend to a significant degree on public input, and the red wolves are depending on YOU to be their voice. Below are ways you can show your support for red wolves and red wolf conservation.

Send an email message to the Red Wolf Recovery Program at redwolfreview@fws.gov. Please remember that positive comments get more attention than negative ones! Also, please be sure to send your email message by the end of business on 12 September 2014.

Plan to attend a public focus group session. Details about these sessions are not yet complete, so watch this page for future information. In the meantime, here’s what we know as of 29 August 2014:

The first session will be in Swan Quarter, North Carolina, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 10 September 2014, in the Mattamuskeet High School Cafeteria, which is located at 20392 U.S. Highway 264.

The second session will be held in Columbia, North Carolina, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, 11 September 2014, in the Columbia High School Auditorium, which is located at 902 East Main Street.

15 thoughts on “Something fishy is brewing in Red Wolf Country: Will the red wolf program survive?”

Kitti

Well said, DeLene!! And nearly impossible for non-local folks to arrange travel and leave from work to participate in focus groups (scheduled mid-week no less)with less than 2 weeks notice – Very fishy!!!

I’m unfamiliar with the red wolf program but I do know that in general to introduce any large species, especially a carnivore you need to have a substantial majority of support, locally, like 80%. I just don’t think the red wolf has that.

When I heard of people shooting red wolves I asked some well rounded hunters from the area just what the heck was up. Hunters support biologists doing research and they follow the law. Poaching of a species being actively researched is just not done, period.

What I was told was that the wolves were interbreeding with the coywolves which are part wolf part coyote and a tiny part dog, and that it was very difficult to tell them apart. I was also told that at best you’d just end up with a few more wolf genes in the yote.

Don’t know how accurate all that is but it’s the sum total of my info on the program. I don’t live anywhere near so it affects me not.

I did recommend that they suspend the program until they have strong local support. Truthfully after hearing about Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, I’m worried my state is next.

Mark L

somsai, before discounting whether the red wolves have support, make sure we take a look at how the data supporting (or opposing) the red wolves is collected. Is it polled from home phones? Would that not discount a large…and younger…part of the population? Is it from a gross number of emails? Would be very easy for someone with an agenda to skew those stats pretty quickly. Also, despite an anti-fed atmosphere as of late, this program has a lot of support in many schools…do these young people get a ‘vote’ in this situation? Only if they have an email account? Do they get any input on their future?

Good data and polling is essential you’re right. Those people at Responsive Management do most of that kind of thing in the US, they’re not cheap but they help craft questions so to elicit as much good info as they can. A bad poll helps no one and can cause lots of grief when it’s acted upon. Children or others are subject to whoever talked to them last. Even poll questions can have a profound effect on the questions that follow. Responsive Management has done a series of wolf polls for Washington State that are stellar.

Our Divisions of Wildlife have lots of money to spend on these types of projects. I do realize funding is sometimes an issue in the East.

If we simply repeat what we are told, we will only know what the loudest voices are shouting (in their own, special interest).

In fact, the difficulty some hunters have in distinguishing a red wolf from a coyote has led to the killings of red wolves (check the headlines). Probably it has also provided a convenient excuse for the intentional killings of red wolves–the “I thought it was a coyote” excuse that has also been used by irresponsible hunters in their attempts to wriggle out of their responsibility for shooting people’s dogs (again, check the headlines).

The ethical rules of firearms use remain “Know your target and what’s beyond it. Finger off the trigger until you’re prepared to fire. Don’t fire unless you are prepared to destroy your target.” The people who tell us about these rules follow them, but of course not everyone else does.

Good questions from Mark I. about how “local support” is determined. One additional question from me: is local opinion well informed on all the facts, and all sides of the issue?

Reblogged this on CreekWaterWoman and commented:
Important notice on the Red Wolf program through U.S. FWS. Please reblog this blog and let’s get our comments submitted. We have only two weeks to submit comments, which is unusually short. Help spread the word.

2) How would you rate the importance of restoring endangered wildlife in places where it is feasible?

3) Are you aware that Red Wolves once lived throughout most of the eastern United States?

4) Are you aware that Red Wolves have been restored to five counties in Eastern North Carolina?

I believe #3 is meant to be a trick question. As I understand it, the full historical range of the Red Wolf is not precisely known, but has been variously estimated to be roughly in what is now the southeastern U.S. It’s fair to assume that the natural Red Wolf range would have been truncated by British colonial settlement, and would have been much reduced by the time of the Union of the first thirteen States to form the U.S. So does the phrase “most of the eastern United States” mean a majority of the first thirteen States? Quite a geography maze they’ve set up there, without a clear entry or exit point.

Is #4 meant to be answerable only by residents of a five-county area in Eastern North Carolina? Residents who attend the County Board meetings and follow the minutes in the local paper? Is there a Sesame Street video that answers this question (sing along with the “Count”?)

Yes, thanks, DeLene, that’s an important link to the “fishy” survey in item #2 of your post. I tried but failed to repeat the link it in my comment about how “fishy” the survey is. I think it’s fair to warn people about the trick questions on the “eastern U.S.” and the “five counties.”

(I didn’t remember how to include an HTML tag until later. Please feel free to delete my HTML-testing comments with the date stamps “09/01/2014 at 10:57 am” and “09/01/2014 at 11:00 am”)

The survey worked today for me; I was able to see and respond to questions 5-11 on page two (as well as questions 1-4 on page one).

This time, I replied to the “Trivial Pursuit” questions on page one using information about the Red Wolf historical range in the “eastern U.S.” and the current restoration program in “five counties” of eastern North Carolina from the USFWS page on the Red Wolf Recovery Program. Yup, for those who cared how many counties were involved, there are currently five of them.